Back
Seeks Response Over Failure to Act on Student Grievance Under BCI Rules
In a significant move highlighting the accountability of academic institutions, the has issued a notice regarding a petition filed by a law student alleging on a formal complaint. The matter, presided over by Justice Shubha Mehta, centers on the mandatory requirement for law colleges to maintain functional .
Silence from the Administration The petitioner, Divyansh Gupta, a student of , approached the High Court after his attempts to seek internal redressal were allegedly met with silence. According to the petitioner, a complaint regarding the conduct of a college staff member was filed on , and subsequently forwarded by the Principal to the Chairman and Secretary of the college’s .
Despite the passage of time, the petitioner informed the Court that he has received no information regarding any inquiry or action taken by the college authorities.
The Legal Framework: BCI Mandates The central legal question in this case revolves around the procedural requirements set forth by the (BCI). Appearing for the petitioner, advocate argued that the BCI mandates every institution imparting legal education to establish a dedicated '.'
The petitioner contends that the law college bypassed this . Specifically, it was argued that complaints of this nature fall under the exclusive purview of the , which is tasked with investigating such grievances and submitting a formal report. By forwarding the complaint to an internal instead, the institution allegedly deviated from prescribed .
Key Observations The Court, after reviewing the preliminary submissions, emphasized the necessity of addressing such grievances through the appropriate channels. In its order, the High Court noted:
"The has issued directions for the establishment of a in every college and university imparting legal education, and the said committee is required to look into such complaints and submit a report."
Recognizing the potential breach of regulatory guidelines, Justice Shubha Mehta issued a notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. The Court’s decision to intervene underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that educational institutions adhere to the standards set by regulatory bodies like the BCI.
The outcome of this petition will have significant implications for how law colleges handle student grievances across the state, potentially reinforcing the authority of Student Grievance Redressal Committees as the primary forum for resolving institutional disputes. The College administration must now justify its procedural actions—or lack thereof—in the coming weeks.
